FUSION AND FACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1925, Page 14

FUSION AND FACT.

AN INQUISITIVE AMENDMENT. MR. ATMORE IMPATIENT. "NO CONFIDENCE MOTION," SAYS PRIME MINISTER. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Without notice in the House of Repre. sent&tives this afternoon, the head of the Labour party, Mr. Holland, suddenly sprung the question on the Prime Minister as to what was doing in regard to fusion. "The Prime Minister," he said, "knows the position in this House is extremely unsatisfactory. The Liberal party is recognised as the Opposition while not functioning as an Opposition. If any arrangement has been made, 1 think the House and the country ought to know." "I will be pleased to reply to the hon. gentleman later on," replied the Prime Minister. "I do not propose to make a statement at the moment. If the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience he will know all in due course." Mr. Holland: The armistice is still on. Referring to the amendment of Mr. Atmore (Nelson) to the Address-in-Reply, demanding the formation of a national Government, the Prime Minister declared that it was impossible to add anything to the Governor's speech, and while, no doubt, the hon. member moved his amendment with the best motives and in accordance with what he thought the best interests of the country, it was quite impossible for the Government to permit anything to be added to the Governor's speech. "For that reason," said the Prime Minister, "I have to inform the House that any amendment of the kind must be treated as a no-confidence motion. I think it only fair to tell members the actual position." Mr. Atmore's amendment was as follows: "(1) That it is imperatively necessary in the best interests of the Dominion that a strong, stable National Government should be formed during the present session in order to provide a 'comprehensive policy of reconstruction and economic and social betterment, and by so ministering to the true needs of the people avert the dangers of a breakdown of representative government and the menace to orderly progress now threatening owing to the increase of parties and the consequent inability of Government to function for the welfare of the State'; (2) that no consideration of party advantage, personal ambitions, or claims of candidates should be allowed to block the way to the immediate formation of such a National Government; (3) that in the event of the parties concerned failing to arrive at an agreement to establish such a Government full information shalLbe given to the people, ] showing the nature of the proposals discussed, and the attitude and actions: of each party, • so that the public may then judge those who have failed to put national interests before the interests of • parties and persons „ md thus proved unworthy of the public confidence:" Mr. Atmore (who had entered the Chamber just as the Prime Minister made this announcement): Last evening I was told that I would not be called on to deal with this matter untjl this evening. Not until the bells have gone and prayer is said am I told that I am required now to speak. To mc it savours of sharp practice. I was told by the Leader of the Opposition and the senior Government Whip that 1 would not be wanted until to-night. The Government says it is a matter of custom to treat any proposed amendment to the Address-in-Reply as a noconfidence motion; l»ut it is not incumbent on the Government to do so and it is a mere subterfuge in this case to follow custom. The reason of this move is because so many floated into the House after the last election by proclaiming theiT belief in a National Government. If they vote in the way they declared to be in the best interests of the people they must vote for my amendment—and they are told toit is a nb-confidence motion because the Government dare not allow them a free hand. The present Government had not functioned for years owing to a lack of an adequate majority. Was it not obvious that if the people were divided, into too many fragments that the members who were dominated by the Alliance of Labour would prevail? He had affirmed that Mr. Coates should have his chance as Prime Minister, and anyone who said his amendment was one of no-confidence was sheltering under a subterfuge. The Socialist party, which was the Labour party, was repudiated by the electors at last municipal elections.' Three out of four electors were workers, but in Auckland, the largest centre in New Zealand, only two Labour candidates' were elected ori, the Council. In Wellington a full ticket was run, but the electors believed so little in the new Jerusalem that only three Labour councillors were elected. If ,you are not. blind slaves of party you will do what the people demand, concluded Mr. Atmore. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Sf. R. Cbrrigan (Pa'tea). Mr. Fraser moved an amendment to Mr. Atmore's amendment, that the words after "is" in the first line be omitted, and that these words be inserted: "Desirable in the best interests of the Dominion that the three-party system should come to an end and that the proposed union between the Reform and Liberal parties should be consummated. That there is no single political principle upon which the two parties mentioned are in disagreement, and that no question of allocation of portfolios, personal ambitions or claims of candidates is any justification for blocking the way ( to the immediate formation of a united Conservative party, or for the Reform and Liberal parties remaining apart." '" ' Mr. Fraser went on to quote N a speech from "Hansard" given by Mr. Atmore in 1920, which he declared to be revolutionary and inflammatory. Mr. Atmore, he said, should be the last man in the world to attempt to make himself an ambassador of peace or try to c©6 lifce a sucking dove. (Laugbter) In 1820, Mr. Atmore declared, "The Labour party's platform is easily the best pUt-fonn..~(Ci-Ct of 'Oh! Oh!'.) .The Labour party's \ platform .was by.: __te necessity 6f-Labour" throughout the world. (Renewed laughter:) Their platform is the gathering together of the thoughts and discoveries of the greatest men of the time." (Renewed laughter.)

The Right of the Electors. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) later in the debate declared that he had heard very little talk in his electorate regarding fusion. The electors had a right to be consulted in the matter. It would have been wise for the member for Nelson not to have moved his resolution at the present time. Mr. Atmore had eaid that members put place and power before the country. He (Mr. Anderson) knew what had happened, and knew that such considerations had not come into the matter at all. The Prime Minister had the resignations of every one of his colleagues in hand ever since the commencement of the negotiations, and no Minister had expressed any desire to etand in the way of bringing this about if the parties were in favour of amalgation. The matter of when they should come together waa in negotiation, and had not come to an end. As a strong fusion advocate who declined to vote for Mr. Atmore's fusion amendment, Mr. Lysnar (Gisborne) gave three reasons for his decision. At the same time he would not vote against it. The first reason was that the result of the negotiations was not known, and it was not right to precipitate the matter. The Government had treated it as a no-con-fidence motion, and in that way it was possible it might deprive the country of the services of the new Prime Minister. Until he had a chance he should not be voted out. It was the duty of the leaders to come to terms, but if they were unsuccessful he would not take the responsibility of forcing matters, compelling them to come to terms. If there was to be compulsion it must rest with the electors. What was the use of bringing the two parties together if they did not come cheerfully, agreeably and in the interests of the country. Mr. Langstone (Waimarino) considered that fusion was a matter for the electors and one which members had no right to decide in the House for themselves. The honest thing was to go before the electors, either now or at the general election. Let them go to the electors and show that, like Joseph, they had coats of many colours. The electors would know what particular brand of political jam they were getting, but there would be even more confusion following a fusion of Liberal vinegar with Reform vinegar. Mr. Harris said that in view of the fact that no statement had been made by the leaders of the parties one felt difficulty in knowing what to do, a.% it was possible to prejudice the negotiations now in progress. However, he concluded that the opinion, of the leaders , was that tlf the best interests of the country no statement should be made at present. He had been elected to 6upport the Reform party, and had no alternative but to support the Prime Minister. He regretted that he would be forced to vote against the motion; he would like to support Mr. Atjnore's motion if he had a free hartf. He knew of no . reason' why the two parties 6hould not come together. If they did not do so before the next election the electors would tell them plainly it was time this mimic warfare ceased. Mr. Atmore expressed contempt for the "political Billingsgate" poured out on him from the Socialistic benches. In face he regarded it as-a compliment. "I move this amendment out of no personal hostility to the Prime Minister," declared Mr. Atmore. "I would like the Prime Minister to get a fair chance, hut he cannot get a fair chance with his party as at present formed. I hope, even at this late hour, we will have the fusion. I c&n dee no prospect of a New Zealand Government functioning without a strong majority." Mr. Sullivan claimed that it was a matter of indifference to Labour whether there was a fusion of Reform and Liberal or not. It was fusion being organised for the purpose of fighting Labour. The Liberals were throwing themselves into the Tory camp on any terms on which the Government was willing to accept them.. It was a tragedy for Liberalism. Mr. Wilford: Is that why you move the resolution? Mr. Sullivan: Our motion is moved to put in just a grain of truth flat was not there before. On a division the Labour amendment was defeated by 51 to 15, Mr. Atmore voting with the Government. Mr. Holland: Now the Labour amendment has been defeated, I wish to state the Labour position with respect to the motion moved by the member for Nelson. I hope, when I am dealing with him, he will not escape to the outer darkness, as he did when the member for Avon was replying to him. Mr. Atmore: You flatter yourself. Mr. Holland: The hon. gent has a habit of running away when he has fired, his shot. Mr. Atmore: Not from- "duds." Mr. Holland: I am eorry it hurts the hon. gent. No doubt his nerves were badly shaken this afternoon and to-night. I want to say that since the Government has declared this is to be a no-confidence motion we are to be consistent with our general attitude to vote no confidence, though it is unfortunate that we have to go into the lobby with the hon member for Nelson. There is no member of the House we would lese prefer to go into the lobby with. After Mr. Atmore had replied to personalities and denied the allegation made by Mr. Holland that he had not attempted to enlist in the late war, his amendment went)to a division and was defeated by 34 to 30, the Liberals and Labour voting with Mr. Atmore. The debate then adjourned. ', DIVISION LIST. The divieion list was as follows:— For the Amendment (30). Armstrong. McKay. Atmore. McKeen. Bartram. Macpherson. Perrelle. . Masters. Forbes. Monteith. Fraser. Munro. Hanan. O'Brien. Holland. Parry. Horn. ' Ransom. Howard. Savage. Langstone. Sidey. Lee. Smith. Lye. Sullivan. McCombs. Veitch. Mcllvride. Wilford. Against the Amendment (34). Anderson. Luke. ••■ Bell*.- - • - • McLennan. Bitchener. " McLeod. Bollard. ' Macmillan. Burnett. Nash. Coates. Nosworihy. Dickson, J. M. Parr. Dickson, J. S. Poland. Field. Pomare. Girling. Potter. Glenn. Rhode*, Sir R. H. Harris. £hod*e, T. W. Hawken. IteUeiton, F. J. Hoekly. ReUwtdn, J. C. Hudion. Sykes. Hunter.- Williams. "■■LinkTJrt^r.' : j- ivO /:. .Wright. ".%■■ :. .-,- ; Tfie pairs ~were as folio^S.:—- 1 .. '.■■-,. For: Jordan, Buddo, Murdoch, Edie, Thomson, Ngata and Corrigan. Against: Stewart, Guthrie, Witty, Isitt, Uru, Henare, and Young.